17.06.2023
ORDER ON ADMISSION
Mr. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The appellant/Opposite Party has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.16.01.2023 passed in CC.No.698/2020 on the file of Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore which directed this appellant to refund the amount paid by the complainant with interest at 10% p.a. along with costs.
2. The appellant submits that the respondent/complainant had applied for allotment of site measuring 40x60 in the Kalpaviruksha Layout developed by this appellant and totally paid Rs.7,61,600/- and assured that the site will be allotted immediately after completion of development works and approval from the concerned Authority. Inspite of undertaking for allotment of the site, this appellant had not allotted a site and registered in favour of the complainant instead of completion of 15 years for development. The Opposite Party had not developed the layout till today. Subsequently, the respondent/ complainant initiated a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/Opposite Party sought for refund of the amount paid. After trial, the District Commission directed this appellant to pay Rs.7,61,600/- with interest and costs within 60 days. Infact, the Order passed by the District Commission is against to the rules and regulations. Infact they are ready to register the Sale Deed in favour of the respondent and the same defence was taken before the District Commission. The District Commission considering the defence taken by this appellant had allowed the complaint and directed this appellant to pay the above compensation which is not in accordance with Consumer Protection Act. The appellant is still ready to allot the sites if the respondent had paid the balance amount towards sale consideration. The District Commission without any reasons awarded interest on the said amount and also directed to refund the amount with interest. Hence, prayed to set aside the Order passed by the District Commission in the interest of justice and equity.
3. Heard advocate appellant on admission.
4. On perusal of the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the order and documents produced before the District Commission, it is an admitted fact that the respondent had paid an amount of Rs.7,61,600/- for allotment of site measuring 40x60 in “ Kalpaviruksha Layout” in the year 2008-09, but, the appellant had not developed the layout to allot the site in favour of the respondent. We noticed that there is already 15 years over for development of the layout. The respondent having no option has filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service and sought refund of the entire amount paid towards the allotment of site along with interest at 10% p.a. and costs.
5. The District Commission after trial has rightly allowed the complaint and directed this appellant to refund the amount paid by the respondent with interest. The Order passed the by the District Commission is justifiable. The learned counsel for appellant at the time of admission had submitted that they are ready to execute the Sale Deed, but, mere submission is not sufficient to hold that they are ready to execute the Sale Deed. We noticed that no documents were placed before this Commission to show that the land was fully developed and sites are ready for registration, as such, the submission made by the appellant is not acceptable. The appellant had not shown any valid reasons for not developing the allotment as undertaken. It is a clear case of deficiency in service and they are liable to pay the award amount as per Order of the District Commission. We found no valid merits in the appeal. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sunita .C. Bagewadi) (Ravishankar)
Member Judicial Member
